On Friday, 12 August 2016 23:30:35 UTC+1, ***@att.net wrote:
Of course, strictly restricting competition to amateurs means the rich vs those with governmental support under some non-sports guise.
I fully agree - the concept of amateur status being something to admire is so 19th-century.
The history of sport in the UK is full of gentleman amateurs trying to prevent the rise of uneducated oiks (as they saw them) in their chosen activity. In rugby, the sport actually split into two separate codes, one professional and one amateur. In soccer, the public school teams dominated until the passing game was invented by the professional teams. Unable to legislate this out of the game, the toffs simply stopped playing, and even today almost all soccer players come from working-class backgrounds. In cricket, the distinction of gentlemen vs players lasted until 1963, and in tennis professionals were banned from the major events until 1968.
There's even an element of this in bridge. As recently as 20 years ago, I can remember a letter to English Bridge referring to bridge as "a game for gentlemen and ladies", with the clear implication that other people were not welcome.